Question: How is Pinchas' ancestry better than Yehonason's? Pinchas' mother's mother comes from Yisro, just like Yehonason's father's mother comes from Yisro!

Answer: Yehonason was [from Yisro] from his father's side. His father was the son of Yisro's daughter, and Pinchas [came from Yisro] from his mother's side.

Explanation: This is the Aruch's text. This is like "Peshot" (flay), like it says in Sanhedrin (100b) "Lo Tintosh Gildana me'Onei d'Lo Leizil Mashchei l'Chavla", i.e. a fish called Gildana, do not begin to take off its skin from the ear, lest the skin be wasted.

Implied question: There it says [Tintosh, from the root] Netosh, and here it says Neshot! (How can we learn one from the other?)

Answer: Usually these letters switch like this, e.g. (Pesachim 30b) "Ein Tashin the oven with fat of the tail", which is like "Ein Shatin" (we do not smear);

This is like "Tach Es ha'Bayis." The Targum Yerushalmi is "v'Yeshotun Yas Beisa" (Vayikra 14:42).

Explanation (R. Tam): [Rav told him] do not say "I, Rav Kahana, am esteemed (so I should not do lowly work)." [Rav did not mean 'do not say...] for I am a Kohen", for he was not a Kohen;

Source #1: We say in Chulin (132a) that Rav Kahana ate [Matanos, i.e. the foreleg, jaw and stomach, which are given to a Kohen from a Chulin animal] due to his wife (she was a Bas Kohen).

Source #2: In Pesachim (49a) Rav Kahana said "had I not married a Kohenes, I would not have been exiled." They said "you were exiled to a place of Torah (this was not bad)!" He said "I was exiled like people are [normally] exiled [to a place of Torah, i.e. this was a punishment]." He was exiled because he broke the neck of a man [who was about to be Moser a Yisrael - Bava Kama 117a].

Remark: R. Tam similarly explained in Pesachim (113a) "do not live in a city whose head is Asi", i.e. that you yourself, Rav Asi, will be the head, lest you be Batel [from Torah] due to needs of the Tzibur;

This is unlike the Rashbam explained, that the head is Asi, i.e. a doctor.

Version #1: The text says Moshe, for it is improper to call him on the name of Menasheh, since he already repented with all his heart.

Version #2: Some texts say Menasheh. The reason is because he returned to his debacle, like the Rashbam explained.

Explanation #1 (Rashba): The entire Sugya is like the opinion that the verses are written out of order.

Source #1: Rav Papa asks after this "we should say that if there is a son..." According to the opinion that the verses are written in order, why should we change the verses from how they are written?

Source #2: Abaye said to him "do we need a verse to teach that one who has only [one son, that he inherits everything?!"

The Rashbam explained "why did [the Torah] write "u'Ven Ein Lo v'Ha'avartem Es Nachalaso"? This is obvious! It should have omitted this. It should have written "Ish Ki Yamus v'Zera Ein Lo..."

If it is like the opinion that the verses are written in order, how could the verse omit and not write "v'Ha'avartem Es Nachalaso l'Vito"? We need to expound that when there is a daughter, you transfer inheritance from the father!

Suggestion: Abaye infers from the fact that it did not write "Ish Ki Yamus v'Ha'avartem Es Nachalaso l'Vito."

Rejection: If so, what was the question "perhaps the Chidush is that also a daughter inherits!"? In any case, it should have written so, and not write "u'Ven Ein Lo"!

Conclusion: Rather, surely the entire Sugya is like the opinion that the verses are written out of order. According to him, we do not need "v'Ha'avartem".

Implied question: We establish "v'Ha'avartem" for Rebbi's law, that the only one who transfers inheritance [is a daughter]!

Answer: No Drashah is needed for this, and not to teach any Chidush, just that regarding a daughter, the expression "Ha'avarah" (transfer) applies.

Explanation #2 (Ri): The Sugya is even like the opinion that they are written in order. Abaye expounds the fact that it did not write 'Ish Ki Yamus v'Ha'avartem Es Nachalaso l'Vito', which we could have expounded "when there is a son, you transfer inheritance from the father..."

We would know that a son and daughter are equal, since we find elsewhere that she inherits.

Explanation: One might have thought that she does not inherit, because [if she did], she would divert inheritance [to a different Shevet], for her son or husband inherits her.

Explanation #1 (Rivam): The text does not say "there is Yibum only when there is no son!", for this connotes that [the Makshan] admits that a daughter does not stand [in place of her father] for a Sedei Achuzah due to this reason, just like above, regarding a brother, which concludes with this expression.

Explanation #2 (Rashbam): The Gemara means that also for a Sedei Achuzah, we can say that she stands in place of her father.

Support (Rashbam, for himself): From this question "there is Yibum only when there is no son!", the Tana knows that the son is in place of his father for Sedei Achuzah, and not the brother. We can say similarly about a daughter.

Rejection: Why should we attribute the reason [why a son precedes a daughter] to a question that pertains to a brother? It should have said only "also a daughter should stand [in place of her father] for a Sedei Achuzah"!

Conclusion (Rivam): The text does not say ["there is Yibum only when there is no son"]. Rather, it says "also a Sedei Achuzah, we know from this question";

It means that for a Sedei Achuzah itself, the reason a daughter is not like a son is because the son precedes the daughter for inheritance;

As long as we do not know that a son has precedence for inheritance over a daughter, [we would think that] a daughter establishes a Sedei Achuzah for her father (if she redeems it, he gets it back in Yovel), for it says so in Erchin (25b);

Citation (25b) Question (Rabah bar Avuha): Can a daughter establish a Sedei Achuzah for her father? Since regarding Yibum [a son and daughter] are the same, she can establish it. Or, since regarding inheritance, a daughter is like a stranger when there is a son, she cannot establish it!

[The Gemara] answered [from Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael] that she is like a stranger, due to this reason.

Explanation (Rivam): Regarding other inheritances of women, e.g. his daughter or sister, it is obvious to [the Makshan] that she inherits her father or brother, since the inheritance is not uprooted from the father's family;

Also, it is obvious that males and females are the same, both to inherit and bequeath, for what is the difference between males and females? Should women's property be Hefker?!

Only regarding the mother's property he must learn, because she diverts property from her father's Shevet through her son (if she married someone not from her father's Shevet).